Question for HHSDad or any other accounting type person.

[HHSDad]

I was thinking that Clinton had something with a tax cut but that was with a Republican Congress. Wasn't sure that is why I asked.

Clinton was President when the Republican Congress passed the Child Tax Credit and the Adoption Credit in 1997. Both were greatly increased in 2002. The Child Tax Credit is not available to couples making more than $110,000 adn the Adoption Credit is not available to couples making more than $204,000. Yet these are two of the provisions on Charlie Rangel's hit list.

[Booge]

I was thinking that Clinton had something with a tax cut but that was with a Republican Congress. Wasn't sure that is why I asked.

 

You can safely bet your last dollar that Clinton would have vetoed any and all tax cuts.

[Frances Bavier]

Funny thing about all this talk of Democrats and taxes. Basically, the Democrats are saying that if we want to enjoy goods or services that are provided by the government, that we should be asked to pay for them. Listening to all of the conservatives on this board, you would think that "paying your own way" would be welcomed as a form of personal responsibility.

 

The idea of finishing these next two years with a party in charge that spent like drunken sailors, but said "Don't worry about the tab, we'll just go into debt and pass it on to future generations" was clearly not what the majority wanted.

 

If the conservatives on this board want to rail against the taxes that Democrats want to levy, then you should be screaming at the top of your lungs about the last six years of unchecked spending with no way of paying for it.

 

I realize that this is what Limbaugh is saying, but it rings hollow when he was on a six year run of his own, telling us how smart this administration was, and how bad the alternative was.

 

I can't remember which BGP member it was, but someone on here was touting the fact that they were switching from Republican to Libertarian. Whoever it was, at least they recognized this facet of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress for what it was.

 

 

Frances

[SuperB]

Funny thing about all this talk of Democrats and taxes. Basically, the Democrats are saying that if we want to enjoy goods or services that are provided by the government, that we should be asked to pay for them. Listening to all of the conservatives on this board, you would think that "paying your own way" would be welcomed as a form of personal responsibility.

 

The idea of finishing these next two years with a party in charge that spent like drunken sailors, but said "Don't worry about the tab, we'll just go into debt and pass it on to future generations" was clearly not what the majority wanted.

 

If the conservatives on this board want to rail against the taxes that Democrats want to levy, then you should be screaming at the top of your lungs about the last six years of unchecked spending with no way of paying for it.

 

I realize that this is what Limbaugh is saying, but it rings hollow when he was on a six year run of his own, telling us how smart this administration was, and how bad the alternative was.

 

I can't remember which BGP member it was, but someone on here was touting the fact that they were switching from Republican to Libertarian. Whoever it was, at least they recognized this facet of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress for what it was.

 

 

Frances

 

Ouch!!! Very well said. :thumb:

[All Tell]

Why not cut spending programs to unnecessary programs (NPR, Endowment for the Arts etc.) rather then raising taxes. I think that is what most conservatives would advocate.

 

In have no problem paying my share, I do have a problem paying someone else's share. That's why I support use taxes and a flat tax rate.

[Landshark]

Clinton renegged on his campaign promise of a middle income tax cut before he was even inaugerated. His explanation was that the budget deficit was larger than it was when he made the promise - a claim that was not true.

[Fastbreak]

I have no problem paying my fair share for the things that matter.

 

I even have no problem paying my share of helping others who truly cannot help themselves.

 

I do have a problem paying for people able to work and contribute, but too sorry to do so.

 

I have a very big problem paying confiscatory tax rates for what others tell me I should pay to cover their ridiculously out-of-control spending just so they can stay in power. I don't care if they're republican, democrat, independent or penguins.

[Booge]

Funny thing about all this talk of Democrats and taxes. Basically, the Democrats are saying that if we want to enjoy goods or services that are provided by the government, that we should be asked to pay for them. Listening to all of the conservatives on this board, you would think that "paying your own way" would be welcomed as a form of personal responsibility.

 

Frances

 

I've never heard a Democrat say this. Everyone understands the simple concept of paying for government services. The difference of opinion is how big government should be. Democrats are looking more for a redistribution of wealth. If liberals had their way, the government would collect a huge portion of income in the form of taxes and redistribute it as they see fit. As for "paying your own way," I don't know one conservative who would be against that. I am already paying my own way and many other people's own way, and I'm not alone by any means.

[Frances Bavier]

I've never heard a Democrat say this. [/Quote] The ability to understand a group (or individual's) position without having it expressly stated is not some ethereal mental gift. The label "Tax and Spend" has been used by the Republicans for decades to describe the Democrats in a big picture view. The label is both descriptive and accurate. The label used by the Republican party to describe itself "Small Government" is still descriptive, but no longer accurate.

 

Everyone understands the simple concept of paying for government services. [/Quote] If everyone understands it, it's obvious that some people don't want to accept the implications of what it really means.

 

 

The difference of opinion is how big government should be. [/Quote] Historically speaking, you would have been right. In the last six years, you are dead wrong. We are about to complete a six year run with your "small government" party having had complete control. The result? A deficit that is OFF THE CHARTS. Why is that? Because your "small government" party gave away the house.

 

 

Democrats are looking more for a redistribution of wealth. [/Quote] In some ways, what you are saying is true. On the other hand, the real difference between the parties right now isn't the redistribution of wealth, but who the wealth is going to be distributed to.

 

 

If liberals had their way, the government would collect a huge portion of income in the form of taxes and redistribute it as they see fit. [/Quote] I find this very revealing. In other threads, I see the distinction being made between conservatives that believe in small government and those that are social conservatives. If the Republican apologists on this site wish to make that distinction, fine. I understand the point, and I can clearly see the distinction. But if you are going to ask that we acknowledge such a distinction, perhaps you will soon be able to understand and acknowledge the fact that not all Democrats are liberals, and not all liberals are Godless, immoral Communists.

 

The tone of these discussions will take a great leap forward when the time finally arrives that the three or four of the members grasp the fact that there are subgroups within both parties.

 

 

As for "paying your own way," I don't know one conservative who would be against that. [/Quote] Have you ever heard of a man named George W. Bush? He is currently sitting in the White House, surrounded by a coterie of like minded individuals. For the last six years, he has been "enabled" by a Congress that was controlled by Republicans. This gets back to the first line of your post. The fact that you've never heard a Republican say it is immaterial. It is exactly what has happened for the last six years. If you notice, other than the same three or four people, many of your fellow Republicans are upset on this point. Listen to them.

 

 

I am already paying my own way and many other people's own way, and I'm not alone by any means.

Uh - no. Actually, if we were all truly paying our own way, there would be no national deficit.

 

 

Frances

[Frances Bavier]

I have no problem paying my fair share for the things that matter.

 

I even have no problem paying my share of helping others who truly cannot help themselves.

 

I do have a problem paying for people able to work and contribute, but too sorry to do so.

 

I have a very big problem paying confiscatory tax rates for what others tell me I should pay to cover their ridiculously out-of-control spending just so they can stay in power. I don't care if they're republican, democrat, independent or penguins.

 

Good post. I agree with each of these points. The rub comes in how we define what is necessary or good (in terms of spending) and what is a ridiculous waste of our money.

 

 

Frances

[Frances Bavier]

Why not cut spending programs to unnecessary programs (NPR, Endowment for the Arts etc.) rather then raising taxes. I think that is what most conservatives would advocate.[/Quote]I have to admit that at times in the past, I have had to scratch my head on some of the programs that our government supports. That debate will always exist, as long as we (as a country) are able to generate what most families would call "discretionary" income. Personally, I support the idea of funding things like NPR, and the Endowment for the Arts, but I can understand why others might not.

 

 

In have no problem paying my share, I do have a problem paying someone else's share. That's why I support use taxes and a flat tax rate.

As I said to BJRB - if we were all truly paying our fair share, there would be no deficit. The truth is, as a country, we are $8.6 TRILLION in debt. I could be wrong, but I'd say that, as taxpayers, we are clearly NOT paying our share. We are passing it along to future generations.

 

 

Frances

[Landshark]

Actually, if we were all truly paying our own way, there would be no national deficit.

BRJB never said that we are all paying our own way. He said that he is paying his own way. Many others, including myself, believe that we are also paying more into the system than we are receiving in benefits. American politics consists of givers and takers and many of us givers are feeling that we are about to be mugged by liberal politicians again.

[Frances Bavier]

The reality is that at this point in time, if we are ever going to get back to a state of fiscal responsibility, we actually need to take the hardest path layed out by both parties.

 

We need to greatly slash the programs that our federal government runs (reducing spending), while also raising taxes to pay down the outrageous debt that we have run up.

 

The truth is, no politician will ever run on a platform of either of these harsh truths, much less both of them. We may see some Republicans in 2008 espouse the principal of smaller government, but when pressed to show exactly what programs they will cut, they will do an amazing tapdance around the question. They know that for every program that they name, they will be costing themselves votes. Sadly, this is as close as any politician will come to telling the uninformed voters what they really need to hear.

 

 

Frances

[Frances Bavier]

BRJB never said that we are all paying our own way. He said that he is paying his own way. Many others, including myself, believe that we are also paying more into the system than we are receiving in benefits. American politics consists of givers and takers and many of us givers are feeling that we are about to be mugged by liberal politicians again.

 

Still with the generalizations about "liberals".

 

The distinction of paying "my" own way, as opposed to paying "our" own way is ludicrous. This country did not run up a debt of over eight trillion dollars overnight.

 

Do "we" pay down the debt, or do we ask the people that have received benefits for the last 50 years to pay it back? Oh wait - the people that have received benefits for the last 50 years is us. "We" have enjoyed the luxuries (i.e. driving on interstate highways, Social Security, welfare, NASA, etc.). It is up to "us" to pay for it - or lay it off on future generations.

 

I don't remember seeing any future generations driving down the highway, or drawing welfare payments, or cashing in Social Security checks. Therefore, if we are going to be honest about our situation, we need to look in the mirror and admit that, as Pogo once said in the comics - "We have met the enemy, and he is us".

 

Playing the "I didn't eat the cookie, Johnny did" game is a losing proposition. We've been doing that for quite a few decades now, and we can ALL see where it has gotten US.

 

 

Frances

[Booge]

The ability to understand a group (or individual's) position without having it expressly stated is not some ethereal mental gift.

 

Reading someone's mind is. I guess it's too much to ask for a group to expressly state its position these days?

 

If everyone understands it, it's obvious that some people don't want to accept the implications of what it really means.

 

What it means is the small percentage of people who already pay the majority of taxes will pay even more.

 

In some ways, what you are saying is true. On the other hand, the real difference between the parties right now isn't the redistribution of wealth, but who the wealth is going to be distributed to.

 

Which is a redistribution.

 

 

I find this very revealing. In other threads, I see the distinction being made between conservatives that believe in small government and those that are social conservatives. If the Republican apologists on this site wish to make that distinction, fine. I understand the point, and I can clearly see the distinction. But if you are going to ask that we acknowledge such a distinction, perhaps you will soon be able to understand and acknowledge the fact that not all Democrats are liberals, and not all liberals are Godless, immoral Communists.

 

The tone of these discussions will take a great leap forward when the time finally arrives that the three or four of the members grasp the fact that there are subgroups within both parties.

 

Frances, surely you understand that you are one of the top 3 one-sided political posters on here. Everyone else does.

 

Have you ever heard of a man named George W. Bush? He is currently sitting in the White House, surrounded by a coterie of like minded individuals. For the last six years, he has been "enabled" by a Congress that was controlled by Republicans. This gets back to the first line of your post. The fact that you've never heard a Republican say it is immaterial. It is exactly what has happened for the last six years. If you notice, other than the same three or four people, many of your fellow Republicans are upset on this point. Listen to them.

 

It's the economy, stupid. Remember? You can rag him on the easy stuff (Iraq), but you're going to look real bad trying to attack the economy. Look at the big surpluses states have right now, and already Dems foaming at the mouth to spend it all and be broke again, so they can raise taxes yet again.

 

Uh - no. Actually, if we were all truly paying our own way, there would be no national deficit.

 

Landshark already explained this one to you.

 

 

 

Ugh. Your posts where you break down each part of every sentence are the most excrutiating. Not going into a long diatribe, but I see very little I can even begin to agree with.